Burning photos to DVD

[YankeeMom]

Hi all,

I wasn't sure where to place this question, but I thought that someone would surely have an answer.

I am in the process of burning the photos (jpegs) off my computer and onto DVD's. I am using Nero Express to do so, but I am confused when it comes to writing speed. My options are 16x, 12x, 8x, and 4x. I thought that the best option (for better quality and less possibility for burning errors) was to choose 4x, but now I'm not sure.

Any feedback on this is greatly appreciated! Thanks! :D

[Jon]

What's your burner rated at? What are your DVDs rated at? The DVD cakebox usually gives their rated speed. Your computer's specs will have the rating for the drive. And IIRC, Nero can test the drive/platter to see what's optimal.

[YankeeMom]

What's your burner rated at? What are your DVDs rated at? The DVD cakebox usually gives their rated speed. Your computer's specs will have the rating for the drive. And IIRC, Nero can test the drive/platter to see what's optimal.

Ummm . . . what? :confused:

[MaxxuM]

Ummm . . . what? :confused:


hehe...

Your DVD recorder is rated for a certain top speed and so are the blank DVD's. They'll say something like X4 or X16. Your recorder should be able to sense what the top burning speed of the media is and give you options like X16, X12, X8 and so on. The 'quality' and 'content' of the DVD usually dictates how fast you go. I use Verbatim's and burn one step down from the max speed. When burning movie DVD's I always burn at X4 or X8 and if I burn an ISO of an OS (like Windows Vista or OS X) then I burn at the slowest speed since OSes check the CRC (error checking) and if anything is off the DVD may not work. Hope that helps.

[YankeeMom]

OK, my blank DVD says X16 and I have Windows Vista. So would 12X be best or is going down to the lowest (4X) the best?

(My 21yo son did this for me the last time -- where is that kid when I need him?)

[MaxxuM]

Yea, that's basically what I do. Set it one step down from the highest speed. The only time I would go slower is if I was making a movie DVD or making a copy of the Operating System Disk itself. You could go slower, but that would just be too slow. Just remember, get good disks like Verbatim, Memorex or Maxell and not the no-name brands like HP or Dell blank disks. Disk quality ensures a longer life.

[YankeeMom]

Yea, that's basically what I do. Set it one step down from the highest speed. The only time I would go slower is if I was making a movie DVD or making a copy of the Operating System Disk itself. You could go slower, but that would just be too slow. Just remember, get good disks like Verbatim, Memorex or Maxell and not the no-name brands like HP or Dell blank disks. Disk quality ensures a longer life.

Thanks so much, I have Memorex. I appreciate the feedback. :D

[Nemesismachine]

Yea, that's basically what I do. Set it one step down from the highest speed. The only time I would go slower is if I was making a movie DVD or making a copy of the Operating System Disk itself. You could go slower, but that would just be too slow. Just remember, get good disks like Verbatim, Memorex or Maxell and not the no-name brands like HP or Dell blank disks. Disk quality ensures a longer life.

Why burn OS discs slower? If your drive is failing discs you burn fast then it's time for a new burner. I have made hundreds of W2K3MS, XPSP3, Ubuntu, RHEL, Office 2K3, Office 2K7, etc... with ZERO problems. Same thing with ripping DVDs or Blu-Ray discs. If the data is there, it's there. Only if the disc fails will I ever slow the burn down. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Just because it's burned faster doesn't mean the quality is worse.

[MaxxuM]

Why burn OS discs slower? If your drive is failing discs you burn fast then it's time for a new burner. I have made hundreds of W2K3MS, XPSP3, Ubuntu, RHEL, Office 2K3, Office 2K7, etc... with ZERO problems. Same thing with ripping DVDs or Blu-Ray discs. If the data is there, it's there. Only if the disc fails will I ever slow the burn down. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Just because it's burned faster doesn't mean the quality is worse.

OK, can you find me a professional source that recommends maxing out burn speeds on CD's and DVD's for OS/Music? I can find plenty that say not to.

Burning data onto a CD/DVD is an analog process, not a digital one. There is a conversion process that is more than capable of erring. So, it isn't always 'there' as you would like to think.

That said, the burner and media should not be over looked. The quality of the end product is due to a process and in any process one part that fails can make the entire process fail.

[Mark1]

Do you have a "Max Possible" option. Some programs have this, and it will quirey the computer and disk to find the max speed it can burn at and use that speed.

[MaxxuM]

Do you have a "Max Possible" option. Some programs have this, and it will quirey the computer and disk to find the max speed it can burn at and use that speed.

Every burning software I've used always picks the highest burn rate as default. Unless you change these settings the software will quire both the DVD burner and the media and pick the highest speeds. If you put an older X4 CD into the drive it will pick X4 as the default.

[Mark1]

True, but not all the programs list it as an option. If it does, it just makes it easy to tell someone "just use this". No overexplaining needed.

[basroil]

OK, can you find me a professional source that recommends maxing out burn speeds on CD's and DVD's for OS/Music? I can find plenty that say not to.

Burning data onto a CD/DVD is an analog process, not a digital one. There is a conversion process that is more than capable of erring. So, it isn't always 'there' as you would like to think.

That said, the burner and media should not be over looked. The quality of the end product is due to a process and in any process one part that fails can make the entire process fail.

Disks are digital, not sure where you got your analog thing from, even the "analog" video of laserdisk is still PCM. You can safely burn them at the maximum rate given everything is stable. But since disks often are not, most programs burn at less than the rated speed when they see issues burning data (my 8x laptop drive usually goes 4.5x, my 16x desktop one mighthit 12x, even with good 16x media). The best setting is always to let the program handle it, unless you are using those gold backed archival disks.

Why burn OS discs slower? If your drive is failing discs you burn fast then it's time for a new burner. I have made hundreds of W2K3MS, XPSP3, Ubuntu, RHEL, Office 2K3, Office 2K7, etc... with ZERO problems. Same thing with ripping DVDs or Blu-Ray discs. If the data is there, it's there. Only if the disc fails will I ever slow the burn down. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Just because it's burned faster doesn't mean the quality is worse.

Few things there:
OS method of disk burning is image creation to disk, then burn to media. Most software just burns directly to media, writing the disk image as it goes. While it's faster, there's a chance that a file will be corrupted, or not available, etc, and disk will fail half way. image to disk method prevents bad burns due to file issues (unless your hdd is failing and corrupts the image).

Faster burning is sometimes worse, especially in poorly made disks or those with specialty chemicals. It's like baking bread (with a laser), you can do it slowly and let the outside and inside heat up fairly evenly, or you can throw it in an ore furnace, turn the outside to carbon, and keep the inside cool and still just dough. While usually not as drastic as that due to already low exposure speeds and very thin layers, we are talking about lasers that are twenty times brighter than the sun. Usually you have no problems, even in long term apps, but if you want to be sure a slower speed (than rated disk speed) won't hurt, and often helps. If you follow a 5 year re-burn cycle though, not sure how much better it'll actually be.

[Mark1]

Disks are digital, not sure where you got your analog thing from, even the "analog" video of laserdisk is still PCM. You can safely burn them at the maximum rate given everything is stable. But since disks often are not, most programs burn at less than the rated speed when they see issues burning data (my 8x laptop drive usually goes 4.5x, my 16x desktop one mighthit 12x, even with good 16x media). The best setting is always to let the program handle it, unless you are using those gold backed archival disks.



Also remember things are not rated while doing the maximum amount of work. They are rated with minimal data being written to the disk for a short amount of time. Say all 1's for 15 seconds. So you will never reach the maximum burning a movie or filling it with images unless you have a monster of a machine.

[MaxxuM]

Disks are digital, not sure where you got your analog thing from, even the "analog" video of laserdisk is still PCM. You can safely burn them at the maximum rate given everything is stable. But since disks often are not, most programs burn at less than the rated speed when they see issues burning data (my 8x laptop drive usually goes 4.5x, my 16x desktop one mighthit 12x, even with good 16x media). The best setting is always to let the program handle it, unless you are using those gold backed archival disks.

Yes and no - but more no :)

This is actually a pretty complex process (thus for a long time only large companies were able to produce CD/DVD's). In laymen's terms, the process of burning a CD/DVD is analog because the CD/DVD-ROM must read bumps/flat areas or burn marks and translate them back into a digital format. It is at this point where errors can be introduced. A true digital medium would be a flash drive because there is no translation back into a digital format. Either you have it or you don't.

Thus, my original point - please provide me a sourse recommending maximum burn rates. Microsoft, Novel, Apple, Ubuntu and many others all recommend burning their OS's at slower (or slowest) rates to ensure better burns. I don't have time to seak out every instance, but here's one (Ubuntu Live CD (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BurningIsoHowto) - #5 down toward the bottom).

I beg to differ about the speed thing however. Yes, I know the x factor is an estimate, but the program 'always' attempts to burn at the highest rated speed regardless of media (actual burn rate asside as these are simply estimates). Something that always attempts to do something at the fastest rate can not be said to make any true 'best setting' - it simply picks the fastest burn rate possible - not the best burn rate possible.

If you can provide some documentation from respected sources recommending maximum burn speeds [that do] not impacting compatibilty, success rates or accuracy I would be very willing to read them.

[basroil]

Yes and no - but more no :)

This is actually a pretty complex process (thus for a long time only large companies were able to produce CD/DVD's). In laymen's terms, the process of burning a CD/DVD is analog because the CD/DVD-ROM must read bumps/flat areas or burn marks and translate them back into a digital format. It is at this point where errors can be introduced. A true digital medium would be a flash drive because there is no translation back into a digital format. Either you have it or you don't.

Thus, my original point - please provide me a sourse recommending maximum burn rates. Microsoft, Novel, Apple, Ubuntu and many others all recommend burning their OS's at slower (or slowest) rates to ensure better burns. I don't have time to seak out every instance, but here's one (Ubuntu Live CD (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BurningIsoHowto) - #5 down toward the bottom).

I beg to differ about the speed thing however. Yes, I know the x factor is an estimate, but the program 'always' attempts to burn at the highest rated speed regardless of media (actual burn rate asside as these are simply estimates). Something that always attempts to do something at the fastest rate can not be said to make any true 'best setting' - it simply picks the fastest burn rate possible - not the best burn rate possible.

If you can provide some documentation from respected sources recommending maximum burn speeds [that do] not impacting compatibilty, success rates or accuracy I would be very willing to read them.

Just because you get values of .004 or .92 (or other things in that range between 0 and 1) doesn't mean it's not digital. Flash memory too has tolerances and thresholds that a voltage has to cross to be registered as 0 or 1. Process can be considered analog, but that's taking a different meaning as when comparing analog to digital. Like saying analog watch and digital watch when both are run by processors and quartz controller (mechanical watch on the other hand is different physically in how it operates, but it can also be considered a digital mechanical system, since all digital systems need is to be discrete )

As for burners, http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=32614 (not quite scientific, but since most disks are rated for 10-30 years, not many have been able to do proper desting on every single disk type). It's always been more about the media rather than burner or burning method. The decent programs out there for burning (not windows/osx direct burners) generally burn at the best speeds they can. And max burn rate is closer to the max heat in the drive/media rather than short term/long term (since buffer doesn't count towards speed as it does in HDDs and flash memory), and writing all 1s would be the absolute worst thing to do if you wanted speed, much faster to write all 0s ;)

[MaxxuM]

Just because you get values of .004 or .92 (or other things in that range between 0 and 1) doesn't mean it's not digital. Flash memory too has tolerances and thresholds that a voltage has to cross to be registered as 0 or 1. Process can be considered analog, but that's taking a different meaning as when comparing analog to digital. Like saying analog watch and digital watch when both are run by processors and quartz controller (mechanical watch on the other hand is different physically in how it operates, but it can also be considered a digital mechanical system, since all digital systems need is to be discrete )

As for burners, http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=32614 (not quite scientific, but since most disks are rated for 10-30 years, not many have been able to do proper desting on every single disk type). It's always been more about the media rather than burner or burning method. The decent programs out there for burning (not windows/osx direct burners) generally burn at the best speeds they can. And max burn rate is closer to the max heat in the drive/media rather than short term/long term (since buffer doesn't count towards speed as it does in HDDs and flash memory), and writing all 1s would be the absolute worst thing to do if you wanted speed, much faster to write all 0s ;)

Yes, but a flash drive is an electronic media source, not a foiled disk. A CD/DVD is simply a microscopic version of braille with bumps and flat points. And braille is not digital ;). The use of lasers just makes the it better suited for such a task (red lasers and now the narrower blue). NASA and a others are working on laser communications where actual data is sent via light, but until that pans out we are stuck with etching and burning drives :(

Now, as to your other assertion, I'm going to have to pull up some white papers on some burning software and do some tests. I've never seen NERO or Toast try to lower burn speeds - they typically try to burn at the maximum rate for the media. Perhaps I didn't pay close enough attention so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, that aside, slower is still considered better for accuracy and that is backed up by just about every source I've encountered.

[basroil]

NASA and a others are working on laser communications where actual data is sent via light, but until that pans out we are stuck with etching and burning drives :(

Wait, you mean am/fm radio, wifi, IR remotes, fiber cable, that sort of stuff ?;)

All communications nowadays is done by light (some sort of EM wave at least, fiber is partially visible light), not sure what they are "inventing" this time. Maybe they also have an artificial gravity habitiation module for extended duration space exploration being "invented" (you know, that really old spinning space station design in 2001, man that movie invented everything, as did wells novels and a few other things earlier. people really haven't invented much lately, just finally managed to get really old ideas to work with modern equipment and design)

[MaxxuM]

Wait, you mean am/fm radio, wifi, IR remotes, fiber cable, that sort of stuff ?;)

All communications nowadays is done by light (some sort of EM wave at least, fiber is partially visible light), not sure what they are "inventing" this time. Maybe they also have an artificial gravity habitiation module for extended duration space exploration being "invented" (you know, that really old spinning space station design in 2001, man that movie invented everything, as did wells novels and a few other things earlier. people really haven't invented much lately, just finally managed to get really old ideas to work with modern equipment and design)

Sigh... you know what I meant. Radio waves (RF) is not the same as pulse laser communications in the low and high nm ranges.